I guess I didn't realize that I was having a conversation with a book.My mistake. So am I to take it that you consider it your Christian duty to insult and anger others?

You might have known if you would have attempted to read it.Once again the straw man alert sounds!

No, your not to take it that I consider it my duty to insult or anger others.My Christian duty calls for me to spread the message of Jesus and the salvation he offers to others. But if they don't wish to hear it, I don't try to force them as Jesus himself warned against this: Lu 9:5 - And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

But when the issue of evolution arose, this was an attack on the foundation of Christianity(Genesis), wether intensional or not, so Christians must stand up to the lie of evolution, and thwart it where it counts, in the scientific and logical arena.Thats where groups like AiG come in, with Ph.D scientists refuting evolution at every turn.

Of course evolutionists deny being refuted, but thats their faith so they can't seem to let it go, no matter how much its refuted with science or common sense.Its not my words that offend people, its the idea of God, and having to be accountable to his law that angers them.And even the idea of creation angers them, because this implys God.

But when the issue of evolution arose, this was an attck on the foundation of Christianity(Genesis), wether intensional or not...

Since much of the groundwork leading up to evolutionary theory was done by men of the cloth, I'd say it's safe to assume that attacking the foundations of Christianity never was a high priority. But why pick on evolution? If you insist on equating Christianity with literal interpretation of Genesis, it's geology and astronomy that are leading the charge, and physics gets in a few licks too. How about if we just close the schools altogether?

Its not my words that offend people, its the idea of God, and having to be accountable to his law that angers them.

Evidently, you don't believe that any such thing as a genuine atheist actually exists.

Since much of the groundwork leading up to evolutionary theory was done by men of the cloth, I'd say it's safe to assume that attacking the foundations of Christianity never was a high priority. But why pick on evolution? If you insist on equating Christianity with literal interpretation of Genesis, it's geology and astronomy that are leading the charge, and physics gets in a few licks too. How about if we just close the schools altogether?

Evidently, you don't believe that any such thing as a genuine atheist actually exists.

A genuine atheist is someone who believes there is no god, correct?

Why pick on evolution? because its untrue.Men of the cloth first came up with evolution? lets see some proof of that?

In reading this thread a couple of things stand out. First, fishbob made the incorrect assertion that education in America has for 200 years been public. It hasn't. Until the 1850's almost all education was a function of the various churches or the communities where the schools were. Look up "Thomas Dewey" to find out how and why the schools fell into the secular camp.

Second, it has been asserted that there is "no evidence" for a young earth. That is also untrue. There is much about evolutionary theory that has been called into serious question by the work of reputable scientists, and there is also a lot of evidence that suggests a young earth. The evolutionary problems and YE evidences assail the secular establishment and consequently are dismissed out of hand.

You might also say that it is someone who does not fear God. If I told you that evil fairies would visit you in the night, would you be afraid? Would you need to invent a new science to provide comfort against the prospect?

Men of the cloth first came up with evolution? lets see some proof of that?

In Darwin's time, most naturalists were clergymen. It was their painstaking work in geology, botany, and zoology that laid the groundwork for Darwin's theory, and he himself studied for the clergy at Cambridge. Among those who influenced Darwin was Revd. Leonard Jenyns and Rev. John Stevens Henslow. Though Darwin was unaware of it, Gregor Mendel's work in genetics initiated what is an important component of the modern synthesis (he was an Augustinian monk).

My ideas are a little more political. I am in favor of a school voucher system. An example, if people don't want their kids being taught evolution they could take their tax dollars and support a private school that would teach their kids Creation. This would ensure that people's money isn't going to something they don't believe and are offended by, and also that the education system becomes more competitive which would ensure the laziness we find with many teachers stop.

I think that would solve most of the debate about evolution or creation being taught in schools as people could take their kids and pay their taxes to systems that support their ideas.

tk

Why should people seperate their kids to teach different ideas or beliefs? Why not just split the school and have one half of the classes teach creation, and the other half teach evolution? And allow the parents and kids choose what is taught to their children.

Private schools can be expensive, and very rarely does the same tax dollar that pays for public school cover the cost for private school. And from what I understand, not every state allows you to do this with your tax dollar. For when they did a survey on how many would actually do this, more than 50% wanted their kids out of public schools for various reasons, mainly violence. So this would ruin the public school system, and the government would have to admit to failure in this area. So I don't think the private school thing will ever work. It would have to be something put into the school as a choice, which is how I think it should be.

Why should people seperate their kids to teach different ideas or beliefs? Why not just split the school and have one half of the classes teach creation, and the other half teach evolution? And allow the parents and kids choose what is taught to their children.

Private schools can be expensive, and very rarely does the same tax dollar that pays for public school cover the cost for private school. And from what I understand, not every state allows you to do this with your tax dollar. For when they did a survey on how many would actually do this, more than 50% wanted their kids out of public schools for various reasons, mainly violence. So this would ruin the public school system, and the government would have to admit to failure in this area. So I don't think the private school thing will ever work. It would have to be something put into the school as a choice, which is how I think it should be.

Hi ADMIN3,

I think more choice in school would be awesome, however I still am hoping to see the voucher plan one day come into play.One thing that needs to change in my opinion is that they need to not have a law that says kids must attend school.Because though you can force a kid to be in school, you can never force them to learn or want to learn.

When you force all kids to attend, you place the ones that despise being there along side the ones who wish to really learn, and you have problems.Voilent kids are amoung some of the ones who don't wish to be there, they disrupt classes, threaten and intimidate teachers at times.

A voucher plan would allow, kids who attend failing schools to be transferred to better school atmospheres, And obtain the education they diserve.And this would stock pile all the ones who don't want an education in the old failing schools, where they can all fail in peace without disrupting anyone.

This plan was shot down also due to the fact evolution teaching would have taken a big hit, with not being taught in the Christian private schools, as the majoridy of America are Christians.But we can still make an impact, by education and spreading the message of Creation to everyone.

Why should people seperate their kids to teach different ideas or beliefs? Why not just split the school and have one half of the classes teach creation, and the other half teach evolution? And allow the parents and kids choose what is taught to their children.

Because Science is not a democracy, individuals Ã¢â‚¬ËœbeliefsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ are of no concern. The process is:

Scientist discovers new stuff,Scientists peer review/confirm/reject new stuff,Engineering and or teaching professions make use of the new stuff,Teaching professionals relay the new stuff to the students,When new students graduate they are able to make the next discovery, standing on the shoulders of those that have gone before.

Why do you think that evolution has been elevated to the point of calling it a fact? How could evolution have slipped the cracks for 150 years and not be detected (creationist excepted)?

Fact, or science's preception of what fact is? Science has to redefine the word for it to even fit. And now they want the original definition to be put back as what fact is? Fact is truth. And for truth to be actual truth it also has to be absolute. Has evolution made it to being absolute that no other evidence found would ever change it again? No?

And it's been 150 years and it still has not done so? How long do we wait for it to become absolute, or will it ever make it to that point?

How long has creation and God's word been around? How did it slipped through the so called cracks you speak of for so long?

I think your building a strawman here. For even science has no step or process in which a theory becomes absolute. Because there whole step by step process is based on that there are no absolutes. A fact requires truth, and truth requires absolutes. And science cannot work in absolutes, or is this changing?

Because Science is not a democracy, individuals Ã¢â‚¬ËœbeliefsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ are of no concern.Ã‚Â The process is:

Scientist discovers new stuff,Scientists peer review/confirm/reject new stuff,Engineering and or teaching professions make use of the new stuff,Teaching professionals relay the new stuff to the students,When new students graduate they are able to make the next discovery, standing on the shoulders of those that have gone before.I put it to you, devise a better system starting with:

Parents decide what science should be taught to students,

Science not a democracy? Yep, that's one statement I would have to agree with. Science itself controls all that is within itself which makes it a communist run organization. Everyone that is involved, or allowed to be involved, has to have one way thinking (believe in all their theories). All decisions are controlled by those who believe the samething. All decisions and peer review is done by those who think the same way. No voting is done by two different groups with two different views. All just one view. The only view allowed.

Example: What if a government were run with one sided thinking? Either democrats, or republicans or one faction. Would it be called a democracy if a government has only one view and is not open to any other? And all decision are based on this view, and the people have no say so. And all decisions were based on these views. And what if some views of those in this government went against the main view, and those people were removed? Would not that be considered bias? But yet if someone abandons the theories of science, or at least the main ones, what does science do to this person?

They are removed, and their creditials are now questioned.

Name one scientist that is involved in any decision making that has a different view of things from all the rest and has been allowed to stay in his status and allowed to think for himself? Anyone?

So this type of one way teaching has to be applied to schools as well? Because if the truth were known, there are alot of people that would choose to teach their kids something else.

Science not a democracy? Yep, that's one statement I would have to agree with. Science itself controls all that is within itself which makes it a communist run organization. Everyone that is involved, or allowed to be involved, has to have one way thinking (believe in all their theories). All decisions are controlled by those who believe the samething. All decisions and peer review is done by those who think the same way. No voting is done by two different groups with two different views. All just one view. The only view allowed.

This is a pretty popular view of the way things work in science -- which is unfortunate, because nothing could be further from the truth. No, science is not a democracy; the truth value of an idea isn't something that could possibly be established by majority vote anyway. It's not communism either, and it's definitely not an organization -- in fact, just the opposite. It's anarchy. It's a hatchet fight. The losers always come away whining about not being treated fairly, which reveals a complete failure to appreciate what they were getting themselves into in the first place. In addition to that, it is invariably the case that they forgot to bring a hatchet.

Name one scientist that is involved in any decision making that has a different view of things from all the rest and has been allowed to stay in his status and allowed to think for himself? Anyone?

I'm not sure what you mean by decision making.

If you were to create a list of familiar names in science, it would be not unreasonable to consider every single one to have been someone who had a different view of things from all the rest. That's pretty much how names in science become familiar in the first place. Yet, in the words of Isaac Asimov: "There is not a discovery in science, however revolutionary, however sparkling with insight, that does not arise out of what went before".

If you want to overthrow ideas that have been successfully defended against many attackers, you can't expect everybody to just play nice so you can do that. What you need to do is, you need to bring a bigger hatchet.

Fact, or science's preception of what fact is? Science has to redefine the word for it to even fit. And now they want the original definition to be put back as what fact is? Fact is truth. And for truth to be actual truth it also has to be absolute. Has evolution made it to being absolute that no other evidence found would ever change it again? No?

Then do you have any objections to teaching evolution as a scientific theory (based on observational facts)?

And it's been 150 years and it still has not done so? How long do we wait for it to become absolute, or will it ever make it to that point?

And yet it is taught in schools around the world, how come?

How long has creation and God's word been around? How did it slipped through the so called cracks you speak of for so long?

A discussion for another time perhaps.

I think your building a strawman here. For even science has no step or process in which a theory becomes absolute. Because there whole step by step process is based on that there are no absolutes. A fact requires truth, and truth requires absolutes. And science cannot work in absolutes, or is this changing?

On this point I agree, any scientific theory is always subject to revision when new evidence becomes available (the only golden rule in sciences is that there is no golden rule).

Then do you have any objections to teaching evolution as a scientific theory (based on observational facts)?And yet it is taught in schools around the world, how come?A discussion for another time perhaps.On this point I agree, any scientific theory is always subject to revision when new evidence becomes available (the only golden rule in sciences is that there is no golden rule).

So in other words a theory is a guess, until proven a fact.This would technicaly place evolution as nothing more than a guess.If a theory has no absolutes, its simply not worth speaking of.

In that I mean if It can't be proven a fact, its not science.Science is a method tool used in the means of testing, observing,etc.

You can't test evolution because you can't test the past regardless of what it was, you can't observe evolution taking place in any way shape or form.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.2

Materialism has been man's method of escaping God, under the guise of science. This has been in the works for hundreds of years, and started most recently with Adam Weishaput:

In the last classes I propose academies under the direction of the order. This will secure us the assistence of the literati. Science shall here be the lure. Only those who are assuredly proper subjects shall be picked out from the inferior classes for the higher mysteries, which contain the first principles and means of promoting a happy life. No religionist must, on any account, be admitted into these.

Human Secularists have picked up with the Illuminati left off:

Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values

Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul." Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.

Evolution has been adapted because its anti-God.

Scientific ingorance allowed evolution to be adopted as a self-serving dogma that will be very hard to shake, but,....., we'll do our best.....